[Year 12 Its] RE: IPM 2006 Study Design

[Keith Richardson]

I strongly endorse John's sentiments.
Computing is inherently practical and this aspect needs to become almost
intuitive. Once a sufficient level of practical expertise has been
reached, students are more mentally ready to learn the theoretical
aspects, which are, in my humble opinion, more a matter of
'mind-over-procedure'. If the procedure (i.e. practical) is not
established, the theory is merely attempting to stand in its own right,
and for many (think majority across the state) this it cannot do and
hope to capture the interest and understanding and application by
students.
By way of example... If we teach children all they might need to know
about the rules of driving a car on the road in Indonesia or Africa, or
Australia, before they even know how to steer, change gears, brake, then
we are just wasting their and our time. Yet this is what we are doing
when we have a computer course that is grounded in theory first, and
practical if there is sufficient time.
Thank you for the opportunity of contributing.
Keith Richardson.





On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 16:14:21 +1000, "John Schwartz"
<jschwartz at parade.vic.edu.au> said:
> Stephen
>  
> Thanks for putting this forward. I have been unable to find the time to
> fully express my views on this but I think you have come pretty close to
> doing it for me.
>  
> In my experience, when a student has the time to really develop skills in
> a complex program such as Excel, Access, or a programming language they
> are also developing the confidence, background and knowledge to more
> easily gain similar skill levels in other complex programs. They also
> gain a greater appreciation of the need for planning and a better
> understanding of theoy. Greater emphasis on the practical side should
> lead to both more enthusian for the courses and better equipped students
> coming out of the courses regardless of their intended future direction.
>  
> And Paula, Thanks for asking.
>  
> John Schwartz
> Learning Area Leader, ICT
> Parade College
> jschwartz at parade.vic.edu.au
>  
> 
> This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error,
> please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using
> attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss,
> damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or
> not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files
> our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any
> representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender,
> and not necessarily those of Parade College.
> 
>  
> 
> 	-----Original Message----- 
> 	From: Stephen Digby DEET [mailto:digby.stephen.p at edumail.vic.gov.au] 
> 	Sent: Wed 6/04/2005 3:30 PM 
> 	To: 'IS List' 
> 	Cc: 
> 	Subject: [Year 12 Its] RE: IPM 2006 Study Design
> 	
> 	
> 	Thanks Paula for the invitation to contribute.  It is great when these offers come so frequently and openly (if only DE&T worked that way !!!)
> 	 
> 	I think that the key problems arise from 
> 	* students
> 	   -  overwhelmingly want practical skills and knowledge that they can use in their current or future work (whether it is specifically vocational or just useful in the repertoire).
> 	   -  (reluctantly) accept that they have to learn "theory" because
> 	       - - it puts the practical skills & knowledge in context and
> 	       - - thus makes it more understandable and transferable
> 	 
> 	* VCAA
> 	    - needs theory so that it can continue to argue for intellectual equity and rigor among studies
> 	    - has reduced space for practical skills and knowledge to make room for theory
> 	    - has removed specific practical skills and knowledge because it has given these to VET and TAFE and does not want duplication
> 	 
> 	* teachers
> 	  - want to deliver all theory within a practical context so they want space to develop skill that allow complex theory to be experienced.  This takes time and so the amount of theory covered is in inverse proportion to the amount of practical work (some ivory tower dwellers will always argue that any good teacher can deliver everything simultaneously !)
> 	  - want to be able to offer specific courses that meet student needs or be able to change a generic course to meet those needs.
> 	  - want to deliver the nest study score they can
> 	 
> 	* unis
> 	 - don't want students to think they have already "done" something which needs to be studied in depth at university
> 	 - IT is such a chaotic and changeable creature that the more specific the skills, the less predictable is their utility.
> 	 - Thus, unis want students with the highest "general purpose" skills development - (1) reading (2) comprehension (3) composition (4) clear & logical thinking (5) persistence and self-discipline.  They are far less interested in specific prepatory skills unless they are "tailored".
> 	 
> 	 
> 	Thus, I support:
> 	Year 11:
> 	General course structure focused on applications of "application software" e.g. 2 a semester and 3 over the year (including options for application environments that support programming).  Application types specified with associated skill/ knowledge lists to ensure standards are comparable.  Assessment task library collected from practicing teachers, vetted for standards and made available on line as recommended standards guide and curriculum support.  Students who wish to focus on system design would likely choose a programming support application for the whole year.
> 	 
> 	Year 12 Systems: changed to de-emphasis general theory unrelated to the capacity of the course to offer related skills and experience.  Focus on software development (programming) with specific assessment questions related to each allowed language, as well as generic questions re. programming.  Secondary focus on hardware with options available e.g. WiFi systems, network systems, personal computer systems.  Each with specific assessable content description (differences and overlap).  Idea being to encourage depth c whatever the school can provide practically to play with.  Main improvement - more programming time and focus; less general theory of which students are unlikely to have any possibility of direct experience; more specific hardware focus so that schools are encouraged to provide hands on; more of the course specifically assessable at end of year exam via optional sections.
> 	 
> 	Year 12 IPM:  Changed to de-emphasis general theory unrelated to the capacity of the course to offer related skills and experience.  Focus on software applications at high standard. Approved software types and "brands" c associated specific examinable skills & knowledge (not possible if only vague software "types" are specified).  2 applications all year.  Students encouraged to complete portfolio tasks of increasing complexity as in a job  e.g. MS Access - flat file DB, related DB c standard reports, customised data structure and outputs, customised features requiring macros, linked tables; improve existing design (disassemble, reassemble); complete DB based on output document samples etc.  Main improvement - more application use time and focus; less general theory of which students are unlikely to have any possibility of direct experience; more specific software focus so that schools are encouraged to provide hands on; more of the course specifically assessable at end of
 year exam via optional sections.
> 	 
> 	Just some holiday thoughts......
> 	 
> 
> 	==================================
> 	Stephen Digby, Learning Technology Manager
> 	digby.stephen.p at edumail.vic.gov.au
> 	Cheltenham Secondary College
> 	www.cheltsec.vic.edu.au <http://www.cheltsec.vic.edu.au/> 
> 	Ph: 613 955 55 955  Fx: 9555 8617
> 	==================================
> 	 
> 
> 	 
> 
> 	
> 
> 	 
> 
Keith Richardson
Leibler Yavneh College
Elsternwick Ph (03)9528 4911
keithcr at fastmail.fm